|
|||
|
|
MARION TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 - draft minutes
PUBLIC HEARING FOR SECTION 6.20
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean
Root MEMBERS ABSENT:
None OTHERS
PRESENT:
John Ambrose, Planning Consultant Bob Hanvey, Township
Supervisor
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator *************************************************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER
John
Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:23 p.m. APPROVAL OF
AGENDA
Dave
Hamann made a motion to accept the agenda.
Jean Root seconded. Motion carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. OLD
BUSINESS Section 6.20 F Cul-de-Sacs – new
item #4 John Lowe
stated the purpose of this Public Hearing is for clarification of how lot
lines relate to Cul-de-Sacs. John Ambrose stated new item is similar to Section 3.02, but indicates that any lot located on a Cul-de-Sac shall have its side lot lines designed to be radial to the front property line or right of way line either on a private or public road. Except for such lot lines that would create uneven or inconvenient or irregular lot shapes. This is for clarification as to how lots would be
laid out and designed around the Cul-de-Sac. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. ADJOURNMENT
Dave Hamann made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:26 p.m. Jean Root seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR SECTION 6.29 MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean
Root MEMBERS ABSENT:
None OTHERS
PRESENT:
John Ambrose, Planning Consultant Bob Hanvey, Township
Supervisor
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator ******************************************************************************************************** CALL TO ORDER
John
Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:28 p.m. APPROVAL OF
AGENDA
Dave
Hamann made a motion to accept the agenda.
Jean Root seconded. Motion carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. OLD
BUSINESS Section 6.29 Open Space Preservation
– new language John Ambrose stated due to new language being added, the township attorney and he felt it necessary to go through the Public Hearing process again. As background, in 2001, the State of Michigan passed a law indicating all townships shall have cluster housing or open space preservation type language in their ordinances. Over a year ago the township adopted language but subsequently made minor amendments to it. This in essence says as an option the developer may develop a parcel of land, from lot sizes and lot dimensions and lot frontages. Density stays the same providing they keep at least 50% of the
property as open space. that a new item was added: a 50’ greenbelt buffer area shall be established and maintained along any road, public or private, that provides access to a development and is not part of the open space preservation development and 25’ green belt buffer shall be established and maintained along all other development boundaries and no case shall a lot or building site and/or unit occupy a greenbelt buffer area. Greenbelt buffer area shall be established as common open space for a development. Greenbelt buffer areas can be used in the calculations of open space. The Planning Commission may require
additional landscaping if it’s deemed necessary. Another change added indicated a Parallel Plan shall be designed to occupy buildable land only. All lots and/or building sites shall be designed with individual on site septic systems to be designed to the requirements of the Livingston County Health Department. The Planning Commission shall review the Parallel Plan to determine the number of lots that could be feasibly constructed according to the Parallel Plan. This number as determined by the Planning Commission shall be the maximum
number of dwelling units allowed. Jean Root pointed out it’s not a specific requirement; may require additional landscaping if it’s deemed necessary. What John Ambrose read basically
states it must stay in its natural state. John Ambrose stated that in this language the lot lines of the development would not go through the open space area. The greenbelt buffer would not have any part of the lot line. It would be common open space. Individual property owners would not have the right to do anything on the 20’ wide greenbelt buffer between that and the boundary of the property. It can only be used as common open space. It was also stated that Mike Boss’ point is that if two adjacent property owners want to
maintain that area they can’t because it’s not theirs. John Lowe
stated Master Deed language dictates how buffer is maintained and John
Ambrose agreed. Mike Boss pointed out that language should be reconsidered. Jean Root stated the last line states: “The greenbelt buffer area shall be left in its natural vegetation. However, the Planning Commission may require additional landscaping if
it’s deemed necessary.” Landscaping
means it could be landscaped or left in its natural state. suggested using may instead of shall be left in its natural state. Jean Root and Jim Anderson stated concerns of substituting may for shall due to future interpretation of new property owners. John Lowe suggested may but reference back to final site plan as submitted and be specific
on the final site plan. appropriate as written. John Ambrose stated the idea of protecting natural vegetation is that many property lines have natural tree lines or fence lines, that would keep them in place without removing them. He also pointed out if you were to have the language read to just provide greenbelt buffer and delete language about natural vegetation, would open that up to developers having to provide landscaping which could create problems. Greenbelt buffer areas would be left undisturbed during
construction also. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Mike Boss, Boss Engineering, pointed out if you have one subdivision abutting up to another subdivision, this would be mandating that they leave 25 feet if it happens to be brush, it would have to stay brush. People cannot mow and
manicure and maintain that area. David Smith, 328 Francis, thinks that the language is logical as it relates to the natural vegetation in the greenbelt
buffer area. Richard St. Onge questioned who owns that property, which is the association and the association pays the taxes on that from money from the homeowner. John Ambrose cited areas that are already in existence such as Delcor-Hometown Village that has a huge greenbelt buffer around it owned by association. All property owners have
rights to it and pays taxes on it. ADJOURNMENT
Dave Hamann made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:44 p.m. Jean Root seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR SECTION 3.02
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean
Root MEMBERS ABSENT:
None OTHERS
PRESENT:
John Ambrose, Planning Consultant Bob Hanvey, Township
Supervisor
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator *************************************************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER
John
Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. APPROVAL OF
AGENDA
Dave
Hamann made a motion to approve the agenda.
Jean Root seconded. Motion carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. OLD
BUSINESS Section 3.02 – Definition of Lot
Lines #3 Side Lot Line John Lowe stated the purpose of this Public Hearing is for the definition of change of language and clarification of what happens to the lot lines on the end of a Cul-de-Sac and how they relate to the front of the Cul-de-Sac and the number of them on a
Cul-de-Sac. than front or rear lot line, new language has been added that indicates what shall be at right angles to a straight street and radial to curve streets and Cul-de-Sacs either on public or private roads except for such lines that would create uneven or
inconvenient lot shapes. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. ADJOURNMENT
Dave Hamann made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m. Jean Root seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
REZONING PUBLIC HEARING - ST. ONGE
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Jim Anderson,
Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean Root MEMBERS ABSENT:
None OTHERS
PRESENT:
John Ambrose, Planning Consultant Bob Hanvey, Township
Supervisor
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator
*************************************************************************************************************
CALL TO
ORDER
John
Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Dave
Hamann made a motion to accept the agenda.
Jean Root seconded. Motion carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. OLD
BUSINESS Proposed Rezoning Tax ID #4710-01-300-030, 031 &
032 John Lowe stated in spite of problem with mailings and notifications to immediate neighbors within 300 feet, the Public Hearing will
proceed. The Public hearing will take place again but will open the hearing
up to those who were present. Mike Boss showed the Planning Commission the property outlined in yellow, which runs along 1-96 coming down D-19 to Francis Road, requesting a rezoning from Suburban Residential (SR) to Urban Residential (UR). Property now is not being used as SR and it is consistent with the more intensely developed areas within the township and does not push any of the
limits further out. Mr. St. Onge stated he owns the property and the Eagles had approached him to buy a right of way through there and he informed them that Mr. Adler would be taking that over. But they would like another access and are receptive to a new means of
ingress and egress. He also spoke to Howell Auto Repair.
They are receptive to the change. John Ambrose reviewed and submitted a letter on August 13 regarding proposed rezoning. The request is to rezone approximately 27 acres of land from SR to UR, as to allow a multiple family development similar to the Adler development
on D-19 and Francis Road. land use patterns in the area, with regards to existing zoning patterns also to see if it would be consistent with the Master Plan. church
located in the area and adult care facility; to the east and south is
scattered residential. In terms of zoning, the site is zoned SR. The land west of the site is highway service commercial classification. The north of
I-96 corridor is zoned for mobile home park and east and south of site is
zoned in the SR classification. The Master Plan calls for this area to be planned for mixed urban land use which provides for housing ranging from 8-10 units per acre. This is consistent with the rezoning request proposed plan. It would also allow for commercial uses such as service stations, hotels, motels, restaurants, commercial office uses as well as LI uses. The residential use would be more consistent
with the adjacent properties to the east and south than non-residential
uses. John
Ambrose’s recommendation was to recommend approval of this rezoning based
on a number of reasons: 1) Rezoning is consistent with existing land use patterns already found in this general area. The UR district would allow up to high density residential capable of allowing up to 10 units per acre (which is consistent with what the Master Plan
calls for.) 2) The proposed rezoning would be in harmony with the existing zoning pattern that would lie east/south and west of the subject
site. 3) The proposed rezoning request is in keeping with the township’s Master Plan. The Plan use policies have been adopted by
the township for this area. 4) The rezoning and potential land use would provide an excellent land use buffer from the I-96 corridor to the north of this site and from the commercial zoning developments located to the west to other single family developments located
south of the site and east of the site. 5) The zoning recommendation does not imply that the attached plan submitted would be approved. It’s only being used
as a visual aid. 6) Subject site is zoned to this category, the applicant would have to submit site plan for site plan approval and special use permit
approval, which is consistent with mobile family rezoning requirements in UR
district. CALL TO THE PUBLIC John Lowe read letter from Louise Dodd, dated 9/23/03 and also Louise Dodd’s letter, dated 9/23/03, submitted just before
the meeting began. mention of not receiving proper notice and that’s why it was stated the Public Hearing would be held again. The second letter made mention of property owner seeing the plans of the applicant. The applicant is not required to submit plans for rezoning. That would be contract zoning issues. Those issues are dealt with after the property is properly zoned, goes through a site plan review process, goes through another Public Hearing process, in this case because it requires a Special Use Permit, whereby the Planning Commission can establish conditions on the approval. At this point, by law, look at only what the district allows to be developed at
this point. ADJOURNMENT
John
Lowe stated this Public Hearing will be tabled until the next regular
meeting. Jean Root made a motion to adjourn the Public Hearing on proposed rezoning at 8:05 p.m. Dave Hamann seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION - REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean
Root MEMBERS ABSENT:
None OTHERS
PRESENT:
John Ambrose, Planning Consultant Bob Hanvey, Township
Supervisor
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator
*************************************************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER
John
Lowe called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF
AGENDA
Dave Hamann made a motion to approve the agenda. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion
carried 5-0. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES August
26, 2003 Public Hearing Jean Root made a motion to approve the Public Hearing minutes from August 26, 2003. Dave Hamann seconded. Motion
carried 5-0. August 26,
2003 Regular Meeting John Lowe
asked for clarification for the following: - Page 5, Preliminary Site Plan Review Fox Meadows, second paragraph, last sentence beginning with “According
to Section 6.13……; he would like clarification - Page 5, bottom, beginning with “The minimum road width….” Discussion was that there was a language differential between where they were using edge of metal or what they were using. It was in reference to that – needs clarification (the township is using Livingston County standard and they used one basis to reference
and Livingston County Road Commission uses another one) - Page 6, first paragraph, Fox Meadows owns everything other than 25’ easement is referencing retention pond, so it
needs clarification - Page 6, third paragraph, first sentence 250’ is not a slope – it is a distance requirement. Change wherever 250’
slope is referenced. -
Page 6,
sixth paragraph, “John Lowe asked if the township should extend, add sanitary
sewer, that while….. -
Page 6,
seventh paragraph, third line down, “Debra questioned whether – need to
clarify -
Page 6,
eighth paragraph, next to last sentence, “That’s required by the Road
Commission – needs clarification -
Page 6,
eighth paragraph, insert on page 20 of Master Deed Dave Hamann
made a motion to table the minutes of 8/26/03.
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
carried 5-0. OLD
BUSINESS Preliminary Site Plan Review – Pardiac Shell
Addition Jean Root made a motion to table the Pardiac Shell Addition until the applicant requests to be added to a regularly scheduled meeting. Jim
Anderson seconded. Motion
carried 5-0. Proposed Rezoning Tax ID #4710-01-300-030, 031
& 032 Dave Hamann made a motion to set a Public Hearing for October 28, 2003 at 7:15 to hear public comments on the rezoning of Tax ID #4710-01-300-030, 031 & 032 from Suburban Residential (SR) to Urban Residential (UR). Jim Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Dave Hamann made a motion to table the rezoning until after the next Public Hearing. Jim Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Final Site Plan Review – Fox Meadows Chris Fleck, Advantage Civil Engineering, appeared on behalf of Echelon Homes, to present final site plan with revisions based on comments from the Planning Commission members at the August 26, 2003 meeting. Chris Fleck submitted the following letters: 8/29/03, from Patrick Keough to Planning Commission, cited revisions based on comments from 8/26/03 Planning Commission meeting; letter dated 8/29/03 from Patrick Keough to John Ambrose; letter dated 8/29/03, from Patrick Keough to Tetra Tech; letter dated 9/11/03, from
Gary Markstrom to Annette McNamara. John Ambrose stated he had two issues with the Site Plan. One was the landscape plan how northeast and west property lines would be landscaped. He believes the applicant met this criteria; two, area on site plan that was labeled as 20’ x 20’ sign easement. The applicant stated a final design has not been determined. When sign is designed, the applicant will submit a plan for review and approval from the Planning
Commission. John Ambrose stated he would recommend approval of final site plan submittal from a planning and zoning point of view with no additional conditions. review approval by the township attorney. would the intent be to hook into the new sanitary sewer? Mr. Hysen stated that’s not the case at this time but would be available. John Lowe pointed out the retention pond is within 50’ of the existing drain field. Isolation distance between the drain field’s detention pond is a Livingston County
Health Department requirement. 1) There’s a drain field between the house and that and requires a 50’ isolation distance, which isn’t being met. Cheryl Burgette, property owner of house on corner of Burkhart and Mason, was present and stated she intends to hook
up to sanitary line John Lowe read the paragraph from Mike Kehoe’s, Township Attorney, letter regarding the easement issue. “There definitely has to be a separate agreement between the developer and the property owner regarding the detention pond. There should not be approval given, even contingent, without an easement agreement between the developer, the association and the property owner.” Mike Kehoe’s letter dated 9/23/03 was distributed and John
Ambrose will review. Chris Fleck stated it’s their belief that the Planning Commission just recommends approval and then the Township Board actually grants the approval. There would be no contingency
at that point and would be cleared up. Annette McNamara read the last sentence of Mike Kehoe’s letter on page two, “Failure to obtain the consent of the property owner could have an effect on the overall
detention requirements of the project.” John Ambrose responded that the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the Township Board subject to easement being in place. Debra Wiedman-Clawson questioned the developer regarding purchasing .997 acres where the barns are. They’re only asking for the 25’ easement for grading. Mike Kehoe is assuming the detention pond is an easement. It is not. They are purchasing. The issue Mike Kehoe has is that Planning Commission did agree to them securing the 25’ grading easement to the detention pond after final approval. First, they have to prove that they own the .997 for the detention pond and the Planning Commission did agree to have the 25’ easement agreement afterwards because then they would have the pond and work with the homeowner to get the easement. There is a two-fold issue: 1) have to prove they owned the .997 in order to put detention pond could be placed where they wanted to. Then 25’ was for the grading of it; which was allowed to be done after the fact, contingent, and have Board give final approval. Annette McNamara stated the barns on property may pose a problem on land division application. To create that parcel you would be creating two non-conforming structures. The township cannot approve parcel splits if it creates non-conforming structures. demolition of structures. Debra Wiedman-Clawson pointed out the property owner would have to have them removed first before considering the land split. John Lowe stated that the homeowner could post a performance bond stating that they will be torn down by a certain date. approval until detention agreement is finalized. Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated this would allow time to look at wet basin issue whether there was a way to deal with wet basin because of potential of West Niles Virus. John Lowe suggested possible remedy to this problem that there’s a sand bottom drainfield and excavating a portion of the detention basin would allow for the material to drain. approximate ˝% slope instead of 1%. the Livingston County Road Commission does not object to a contractor willing to clean out a culvert at their expense. She also pointed out that the contractor stated they had been told no, they could not do that. Chris Fleck and developer stated they would have no objection to cleaning the culvert
out but would like to get final approval to site plan first. Dave Hamann asked the developer if these items would be finalized by October 6th and Chris Fleck again stressed the Planning Commission is the recommending vehicle to the Township Board. Annette McNamara stated due to property owner saying there were issues being addressed, the township put a hold on the land division application and had not heard back from anyone. Cheryl
Burgette stated she had signed that new purchase agreement for easement. Jean Root pointed out that in reviewing past minutes, the first time this was reviewed was June 2003. She also pointed out that it is not often that the attorney will blatantly come out and say “this document needs to be provided for final approval.” In Jean
Root’s opinion due to this stand, this should be denied until further
information comes forward. Dave Hamann stated minor changes were requested before finalizing site plan and clearly they have not been met. After discussion amongst committee members they agree these issues need to be addressed to satisfy attorney’s concerns even thought developer feels they have satisfied these issues. Again, Debra Wiedman-Clawson read from past minutes stating, “Debra Wiedman-Clawson would like to see paper showing ownership of .997 acres and permanent easement. Jean Root pointed out this was tabled on June 24, 2003 with no preliminary site plan approval. Mr. Hysen stated they do not want to purchase easement until they have site plan approval.” He spoke only to the easement and the Planning Commission were in agreement that easement could be done later on. pulling permit application approvals with the state such as
water and sewer. this to the Township board for site approval with a laundry list of things to be addressed and completed and also township attorney’s statement of not proceeding until
issues are addressed. John Lowe stated site plan issue are the holes in the bottom of the retention pond and the sewer which is off site. Debra Wiedman-Clawson, speaking as a homeowner of Lot 27, agreed that as long as there’s documentation on the wet pond issue, that is addressed and noted for site plan,
she would not have a problem with this issue. Chris Fleck pointed out as a word of caution, that drilling a couple holes in the detention pond does not guarantee that water will not stand there, which was understood. and Annette McNamara explained if they have the money in
escrow to pay for his attendance that would be fine. Jean Root made a motion to table the Final Site Plan approval for Fox Meadows until documentation is provided for the following list: 1)
That they
need to supply the document that has been approved for the boundary line
change; 2) That a $20,000 performance bond for removal of barns be provided with a one year expiration date from final site plan
approval from the Township Board; 3) That the grading easement documentation between the developer and association and property owners be provided for
the Township’s attorney’s review and approval; 4) That documentation be provided for the REU sewer only hook up for the adjoining lot on the western corner, 3983 Mason
Road; 5)
That the
September 11, 2003 Tetra Tech letter corrections be made, and; 6) Lastly, the comments regarding two holes in the bottom of the detention pond as per discussed at this meeting be added. All documentation should be provided by October 7, 2003 for consideration at next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on October 28, 2003.
Dave Hamann seconded. Final Site Plan Amendment – Timber Bluff David Gee appeared on behalf of Ore Creek Development to request amendment Final Site Plan for Timber Bluff. Relocation of the sign and light posts at the entrance. They would like to install two “break away” type light poles in the island. The entrance sign is redesigned. Gee stated at this point this is unknown. John Ambrose stated on original site plan, it was a 35 watt bulb. They are just adding a second light. John Ambrose stated this is highly desirable from a public safety point of view. He also questioned what type of lighting this would be and stated
probably sodium vapors/amber type. the amended Final Site Plan for Timber Bluff. Amendment to include sign and lighting at entrance with the following conditions: 1)
That the
lights on the light poles be sodium vapor bulbs, and; 2)
That low
wattage lights be used from ground level to point at the sign. Proposed Ordinance Amendments Section 6.14 – Home
Occupation Jean Root made a motion to table Section 6.14 – Home Occupation – until next regularly scheduled meeting. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.
Motion carried 5-0. Section 3.02 –
Definition of Lot Lines #3 Side Lot Line Jean Root made a motion to send Section 3.02, definition of lot lines, Item #3, side lot lines to the Livingston County Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. Jim Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Section 6.20 F
Cul-de-sacs – new Item #4 Jean Root made a motion to send Section 6.20 F Cul-de-Sacs adding new item #4 to the Livingston County Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Section 6.29 Open Space
Preservatio Jean Root made a motion to send Section 6.29 - Open Space Preservation Option to the Livingston County Planning Commission for their review and recommendation language to be sent from John Ambrose letter, dated, August 15, 2003. Jim Anderson
seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Review of Site Plan Checklist Annette McNamara distributed copies of Hamburg Township’s site plan checklist. John Ambrose commented that in his opinion there are some serious problems with the way it is written. In all of their process of reviewing a site plan, all of their site plans are recommended by the Planning Commission instead of the Township Board. State statute does not provide any provisions for the Township Board to review all site plans, which is specifically a duty of the Planning Commission Special Use approvals, or condo development, that can make sense. 1) It’s not consistent with State statutes or Municipal Planning Act – any planning acts it’s not consistent with. Reason for this is due to basic government with separation of powers in government – legislative branch, executive branch and judicial branch. 2) Township has the same thing – Township Board (executive board), Planning Commission (quasi legislative board), ZBA (quasi judicial branch) All have certain criteria by State statute that have certain duties and responsibilities. This avoids becoming involved in a political process. Hamburg Township’s checklist negates this and gives Township Board of Trustees approval for
everything. Poorly designed and
written. John Ambrose pointed out in his Site Plan Checklist, page two, has two boxes for site plan review – preliminary and final. This whole package would be the application given to applicant. Applicant must fill out all questions on page 3-5, which are criteria form township ordinance to be met by site plan. John Lowe suggested
adding an additional sentence that fees are reviewable. fee schedule. John Ambrose stated review fees with major changes is same as original; minor revisions is half the cost; one like Timber Bluff’s that is so minimal, was done on an hourly basis. He will add additional sentence
regarding fees are reviewable and GIS aerial photo can be added in
application process. Jean Root made a motion to send to Township Board for review. Dave Hamann seconded. Motion
carried 5-0. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Pete Maxfield inquired about the cluster housing (Open Space Preservation Option) that has been amended. A copy is available at the counter. The Livingston County Planning Commission reviews the third Wednesday of October.
November 11, 2003 the Board of Trustees will review it. Jean Root distributed a list of Phase II REUs that Sue Lingle gave to her. Sue Lingle stated that some numbers may go to some place else. She also provided a map of where they are at in the township under assessment. This list
does not include REUs that have been paid in full. Also, the numbers are
only for subdivisions. Jean Root asked how many exactly can the township add on to that? She would like to know how many REUs are available for the township to use? Bob Hanvey stated with two expansions it would be 8400. Those are all for Marion
Township. over an
eight year period. Jean Root questioned can we buy back instead of taking
from the 700 unspoken for. Dave Hamann stated the process will be that the township is the middle person in the exchange and take them back and refund them what they paid plus their interest and sell them at today’s rate (whatever the rate may be at present)
to the new developer. density. High density is covered in Urban Residential (UR) by Master Plan and not allowed to expand further south than it is, which would be Delcor, nor allowed to expand to the west anymore than it is. It was also discussed the township needs to look at what is UR and encompass that and not go much beyond those boundaries. ADJOURNMENT
Dave
Hamann made a motion to adjourn at 10:45 p.m.
Jean Root seconded.
|
||
